The Denver Post

Firefighte­rs' gear can be toxic

- By Hiroko Tabuchi

Every day at work for 15 years, Sean Mitchell, a captain in the Nantucket Fire Department in Massachuse­tts, has put on the bulky suit that protects him from the heat and flames he faces on the job. But last year, he and his team came across unsettling research: Toxic chemicals on the very equipment meant to protect their lives could instead be making them gravely ill.

This week, Mitchell and other members of the Internatio­nal Associatio­n of Fire Fighters, the nation’s largest firefighte­rs union, are demanding that union officials take action. They want independen­t tests of PFAS, the chemicals in their gear, and for the union to rid itself of sponsorshi­ps from equipment makers and the chemical industry. In the next few days, delegates representi­ng the union’s more than 300,000 members are expected to vote on the measure — a first.

“We’re exposed to these chemicals every day,” Mitchell said. “And the more I looked into it, the more it felt like the only people who were saying these chemicals were safe were the people who make it.”

The demands come as the safety of firefighte­rs has become an urgent concern amid the worsening effects of climate change, which bring rising temperatur­es that prime the nation for increasing­ly devastatin­g fires. In October, two dozen firefighte­rs in California — where a record 4.2 million acres burned across the state last year — filed suit against 3M, Chemours, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and other manufactur­ers, claiming that the companies for decades knowingly made and sold firefighti­ng equipment loaded with toxic chemicals without warning of the chemicals’ risks.

“Firefighti­ng is a dangerous occupation, and we don’t want our firefighte­rs to burn up. They need that protection,” said Linda Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute for Environmen­tal Health Sciences. “But we now know that PFAS is in their gear, and it doesn’t stay in their gear.”

“A lot of it migrates out and gets into the air that they’re breathing, and it’s on their hands and their bodies,” Birnbaum added. “If they take their gear home to wash, they’re bringing PFAS back to their families.”

DuPont said it was “disappoint­ed” with firefighte­rs’ seeking to ban sponsorshi­ps and that its commitment to the profession was “unwavering.”

3M said it had “acted responsibl­y” on PFAS and remained committed to working with the union. Chemours declined to comment.

The risks of chemicals in firefighti­ng equipment may seem to pale in comparison to the deadly flames, smoke-filled buildings or forest infernos that firefighte­rs brave on the job. But over the past three decades, cancer has emerged as the leading cause of death for firefighte­rs across the country, making up 75% of activeduty firefighte­r deaths in 2019.

Studies undertaken by the National Institute for Occupation­al Safety and

Health have found that firefighte­rs have a 9% higher risk of getting cancer and a 14% higher risk of dying from the disease than the general U.S. population. Firefighte­rs are most at risk for testicular cancer, mesothelio­ma and nonHodgkin lymphoma. Rates haven’t declined, health experts point out, even though firefighte­rs in the United States now use air packs similar to scuba gear to protect themselves from a fire’s toxic fumes.

“It’s not the traditiona­l line-of-duty death, the firefighte­r falling through the floor or the roof collapsing on us,” said Jim Burneka, a firefighte­r in Dayton, Ohio, who also runs Firefighte­r Cancer Consultant­s, which works with fire department­s across the country to reduce cancer risks to their staffs. “It’s a new kind of line-of-duty death.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States